My father forwarded me this.
EdAction
105 Peavey Road, Suite 116
Chaska, MN 55318
952-361-4931
http://edaction.org
March 10, 2005
Minnesota Baby Ed Alert, Part I
1. Goal 1 of Federal Goals 2000
2 Early Learning Standards SF 592 / HF 1192
1. Goal 1 of Federal Goals 2000
Remember "Goal 1 of Goals 2000 comes to Minnesota," our all points alert of January, 2001?
EdAction, parents and taxpayers around the state successfully held off that massive, expensive, and dangerous expansion of government intrusion into families, but that plan is here in the 2005 legislature in a big way!
The 2001 alert is again relevant in 2005. For example, our 2001 alert stated:
The next giant step of the federal Goals 2000 agenda is being unveiled to the legislators and to the public: Goal 1, All Children Will Start School Ready to Learn.
The nearly 1/2 billion dollar proposal, "The Action Plan for Early Care and Education in Minnesota," would establish a comprehensive Early Childhood Education (ECE) "system" in Minnesota complete with assessment measures. It is intended for "every child." It would "tie the two worlds of pre-K and K-12 together systemically and universally." It would establish an appointed "School Readiness Council" in every school district to oversee preschool needs in the district, under the supervision of the state Department of Children, Families and Learning.
We went on to say, "Some refer to it as Baby Ed, defined clearly by Marc Tucker, one of the chief architects of the new education system when he said, "What is essential is that we create a seamless web of [education]...that literally extends from cradle to grave and is the same system for everyone..." [Marc Tucker's letter to Hillary Clinton, November 11, 1992] Not coincidentally, Marc Tucker was invited by legislative leaders (Sen. Dean Johnson, House Speaker Steve Sviggum, and House Minority Leader Matt Entenza) to speak to legislators in a closed door briefing last month. EdWatch alerted the public, and your calls scuttled that event.
These issues are a high priority once again in the 2005 legislative session. A number of separate pieces of Early Childhood legislation are moving through the legislature. Together they form a massive financial and structural expansion of state authority over our youngest children. They would move our state a long way toward Tucker's "cradle to grave" education system. These bills have strong momentum. All-out opposition will be necessary to stop them. Here are the components of the plan:
Adopt and implement government early childhood standards, a set of controversial standards for children from birth through four that include social and emotional learning, sex-education, gender identity, diversity training, vocational issues, and social activism (SF 592 / HF 1192 and SF 1278 / HF 1323);
Establish a state rating system for preschool programs based on these standards (SF 592 / HF 1192);
Test the students for compliance with those standards in the state pre-kindergarten "screening" and lower the age requirement for "early screening" to three-year olds (SF 906);
Include mental health screening for all children three and older in the early learning assessments (SF 1365 / HF 1513).
Bribe districts into screening early by granting progressively more state money the earlier they screen (SF 1278 / HF 1323 and SF 1365 / HF 1513);
Assign a state data tracking number to each child when they are first screened (S.F. 1278 / HF 1323).
Expand state funded "school readiness" programs from "eligible" children to all children three or older (S.F. 1278 / HF 1323);
Combine Health, Social Services, and Education programs with Early Care within the state bureaucracy (SF 905);
Link public health services with Early Childhood programs (SF 905);
Visit the homes of all low income families with children ages 0 to three (SF 905);
Increase state funding for early education programs (SF 673 / HF 152 and SF 949 / HF 58)
Establish and fund a non-profit foundation to develop oversight measures for early care and to market the government plans (SF 907 / HF 1419);
In this alert, Part I, we will discuss the Early Childhood Standards. In Part II, we will discuss the testing, mental health screening, and how the pieces are part of a package. In Part III, we will discuss what you can do to stop this.
2. Early Learning Standards SF 592 / HF 1192
Senate authors: Kierlin; Kubly; Robling; Scheid; Pappas
House authors: Davnie; Slawik; Welti; Ruud; Sieben
The proposed system of standards for preschoolers resurrects the failed Profile of Learning through excessively vague, subjective, non-academic, and psychosocially inappropriate indicators that usurp parental authority
These standards have an inordinate emphasis on social and emotional development. Among other things, they do the following:
directly interfere with families raising their children;
give more authority to teachers and to care-givers than to parents in controversial areas, such as teaching gender identity;
bring back all of the controversial areas of the Profile of Learning, such as multiculturalism, diversity training, emphasis on careers. over-emphasis on environmentalism, and turning children into activists of the left with "service learning." These would be imposed on our youngest children;
specifically reference the National Association for the Education of Young Children (NAEYC) and its radical and controversial Anti-Bias Curriculum. The NAEYC Anti-Bias Curriculum, for example, contains such information as:
§ Witchcraft: “Kay sets up...a 'witch-healer' table, where the children can make their own potions.” (p. 9)
§ Homosexuality: Definition of “Homophobia: A fear and hatred of gay men and lesbians backed up by institutional policies and power that discriminate against them.” (p. 3)
§ Sexual Identity: “...the purpose of these activities is to enable preschoolers to develop a clear, healthy sex identity through understanding that their being a girl or boy depends on their anatomy, not on what they like to do.…“Make copies of an outline of a body as drawn by a preschooler, and in small groups, ask children to fill in all the body parts, and to show if the person is a girl or boy.” (p. 53)
§ Activism with Young Children: “Young children have an impressive capacity for learning how to be activists if adults provide activities that are relevant and developmentally appropriate.” (p. 77)
NAEYC Standards
Are NAEYC standards relevant to The Minnesota Early Childhood Standards? NAEYC has endorsed them. The Minnesota affiliate of NAEYC (MNAEYC) helped write them. The NAEYC Anti-Bias Curriculum worldview will be easily implemented through the vague, subjective, non-academic standards -- the Early Childhood Indicators of Progress.
Gender and Cultural Identity
For example, the Minnesota Standards, Early Childhood Indicators of Progress, define family responsibility for developing "self-concept" as the following: "Support children’s awareness of and pride in their cultural heritage." The Minnesota Standards then define the teacher's responsibility this way: "Support children’s developing understanding of their gender and cultural identity." Of course, this is not the proper role of the care provider, at all. "Gender and cultural identity" issues are core family issues. How will teachers carry out their responsibility for the gender and cultural identity of the child? NAEYC's Anti-Bias Curriculum explicitly states:
"Expanding Children’s Understanding of Gender Anatomy and Identity:
Make copies of an outline of a body as drawn by a preschooler, and in small groups ask children to fill in all the body parts, and to show if the person is a girl or boy.” (p. 53)
"Have anatomically correct dolls available…For example, tell a persona doll story where a few of the dolls ask questions about what makes them a boy or a girl” (p. 53)
Activism in Young Children The Early Childhood Indicators of Progress state:
"Social Systems Understanding: Participate in activities to help others in the community”
These activities are not simply benign social services, as suggested by the phrase “help others.” This is where our youngest children will be trained into social activism. School children are frequently manipulated to participate in lobbying and demonstrating for social policy and political change. We've seen this recently at our own Capitol at rallies for increased education funding. The NAEYC Anti-Bias Curriculum states it this way:
"Activism with Young Children: Young children have an impressive capacity for learning how to be activists.” (p. 77)
Along those lines, a November 14, 2002 Berkeley newspaper article reported the following: "The next generation of Berkeley peaceniks gathered on the steps of City Hall Tuesday to demonstrate their opposition to a pending war in Iraq- after school, of course. Armed with protest signs, microphones, and Harry Potter lunch-boxes, elementary and pre-school children demanded city leaders contact President Bush and halt his hawkish ‘war for oil.’” - Steve Sexton 11/14/02 Politicized Environmentalism We also have the politicized environmentalist agenda finding a home in the Minnesota Early Childhood Indicators of Progress:
Social Systems Understanding: Share responsibility in taking care of their environment”
This is where the one-sided and extreme approach to environmentalism that so pervaded the Profile of Learning and which is still embedded into much K-12 curriculum today will be implemented.
Diversity Training Diversity training was a big part of the Profile of Learning for K-12. Many of those requirements were repealed when the Profile was repealed, but advocates for the Minnesota Early Learning Standards intend insert it into the child care system for our youngest and most impressionable children. The Minnesota Early Childhood Indicators state:
"Social Systems Understanding: Recognize and appreciate similarities and differences between self and others from diverse backgrounds”
The NAEYC Anti-Bias Curriculum states it this way:
Homosexuality: Definition of “Homophobia: A fear and hatred of gay men and lesbians backed up by institutional policies and power that discriminate against them.” (p. 3)
Mark Kindt, former Assistant Attorney General of Ohio, stated: “Most citizens would recognize the anti-bias curriculum as a highly politicized curriculum which seeks to impose a particular ideological world-view upon children. Most taxpayers would simply be astounded that tax dollars are routinely being spent toward the state-by-state implementation of these apparently politicized standards.” [Improper Special Interest Influence in Key Contracts: An Analysis with Preliminary Observations on the Politicized Agenda in Child Day Care ] The Action Plan for Early Care and Education in Minnesota states: "We believe Minnesota needs to have a much larger number of ECE programs that meet NAEYC’s standards." (p. 18) Minnesota's Early Childhood Early Childhood Indicators of Progress meet the NAEYC standards. The Anti-Bias curriculum is required for certification of teachers and programs by NAEYC. The Minnesota Early Childhood Indicators will serve as a basis for evaluating and labeling toddlers, rating child care centers, training teachers, certifying Child Care Centers, and teaching parents. They are a breathtaking intrusion of government into the lives and values of families. Adopting them would impose the Profile of Learning on our youngest and most impressionable children. Adopting them would be a brutal betrayal of the voters who elected this legislature and the children and parents of this great state. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Next: Minnesota Baby Ed Alert, Part II
1. Early Screening SF 906 2. A Package Deal: Mental Health Screening for Kids
